From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B90EC28CC0 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 09:09:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF692054F for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 09:09:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726131AbfE2JJL (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 May 2019 05:09:11 -0400 Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.62]:51022 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725990AbfE2JJL (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 May 2019 05:09:11 -0400 Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1hVua5-0003pL-NY; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:09:09 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FYI: vendor specific nl80211 API upstream From: Johannes Berg To: Denis Kenzior , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 11:09:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: (sfid-20190528_193645_252220_40C340E7) References: (sfid-20190528_193645_252220_40C340E7) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-2.fc28) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2019-05-28 at 12:36 -0500, Denis Kenzior wrote: > > I'm guessing that you guys considered and rejected the idea of pushing > these out to a separate, vendor specific genl family instead? We do actually use that internally (though mostly for cases where we don't have a cfg80211 connection like manufacturing support), but vendor commands are there and people do like to use them :-) The idea with formalizing this is that they actually get more visibility, and I hope that this will lead to more forming of real nl80211 API too. johannes